Talk:Tim Luckhurst

Conflict of interest

This article is clearly self-written, or written by someone close to the subject. It is non-POV and narcissistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.250.158 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above user's suspicion that this article has conflict of interest issues. I have removed many of this article's citations to the subject's writings which only serve to boost Luckhurst's profile. Links to commercial websites are not considered appropriate to Wikipedia, and I have removed those as well. User:Gutterbluid seems to have added much of this material to the article. This user's other edits also suggest a COI, as they also relate to Luckhurst. Philip Cross (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems most of the article should be deleted. This is wikipedia, not a place to post your own CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.145 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article appears to be being used as an online CV. Most of the recent edits by a single user appear to be adding non-notable details. This user appears to have a conflict.

I would push for a major tidy of this page, and consider whether its subject warrants this much minor detail on very insignificant topics.

Again- I am suggesting that the author appears to have a conflict of interest, and that this page should not be used as a CV. Comments welcome. PateraIncus (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

One wonders, on reflection, whether this page is not a candidate for deletion? the demands of re-editing the page to remove the frequent edition of non-significant information, as well as the need to rewrite large sections to comply with Wikipedia's policies on self-promotion, hardly seem justifiable given the very minor public presence of the page's subject. None of the individual achievements of the subject seem to merit such an extensive Wikipedia entry; professors of journalism at Kent University, erstwhile editors of The Scotsman, nor principals of Durham University colleges usually merit a Wikipedia page which is *this* contentious. If the page didn't already exist, would anyone bother to create it? happy to hear comments too. 123Tiradentes456 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I draw attention to the fact that in Sptember 2023 the entire section "Controversies" was deleted by FromulentDisco.On the false grounds it was "unrepresentative and irrelevant". The truth is all these controversies were documented in the national media. The appropriate source references were all properly disclosed in the Wiki article too. There are clear signs of persistent whitewashing of this individual's Wiki profile. No negative content remains at this point. Frakofile (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Frakofile (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be aware this Wiki page repeatedly has individuals deleting all controversies. Frakofile (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I note from the editing history that the same meaningful, accurate information is deleted or truncated. This disguises or changes the context of the page. If the same information is reposted by another Wiki editor it regularly happens again. The deleted or abbreviated information is material. It seems an ongoing attempt to portray the subject in the most favourable light possible. Frakofile (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we may have another sockpuppet self-editor here, namely FromulentDisco. It's only edited this article and all the edits appear favourable. This is getting silly. Suggest we revert all their edits? PateraIncus (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I draw attention to the fact the entire section "Controversies" has been deleted by FromulentDisco.On the false grounds it was "unrepresentative and irrelevant". The truth is all these controversies were documented in the national media. The appropriate source references were all properly disclosed in the Wiki article too. There are clear signs of persistent whitewashing of this individual's Wiki profile. No negative content remains at this point. Frakofile (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The deletion of any negative comments continues. Frakofile (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Significant amounts of relevant material, with clearly labelled sources, continues to be periodically removed, without due cause. In particular, longstanding content should not be edited in a way that removes information that is in the public domain. Bookend63 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeated removal of content based on claims of bias

This Wiki page has repeatably had properly referenced, material and nationally known content removed because an individual regards it 'unbalanced'. Without stating why. Deleting entire sections because of personal opinions on bias is unacceptable. Add balance instead. Don't delete. Read Wiki rules. Frakofile (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing deletion of Controversies Section

Stop deleting the section on "Controversies". It's well referenced and was covered by national news. With reference to Wiki editors rules, it's wrong to remove substantial and material content, based on one editor's personal opinion. Don't delete, but put forward content that provides evidence the Wiki content is 'unbalanced' Frakofile (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Luckhurst. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Daily Express

I have removed various claims that were sourced to Daily Express papers, as per WP:DAILYEXPRESS those newspapers are not considered generally reliable; this is particularly important for negative material about living persons. For the Maitlis section, that left two sources -- this BBC article which talks about Luckhurst but doesn't mention Maitlis at all, and this other BBC article which is about Maitless but doesn't talk about Luckhurst at all. Lacking any reasonable sources, I have blanked that section. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

characterisation of Don't Divide Us / general article structure

we characterise as "Don't Divide Us" in this article as an "anti racism campaign". the Telegraph describes it [ as a a campaign group which challenges the idea that Britain is systemically racist, and the BBC characterises it as an organisation that contests the idea that Britain is systematically racist . From the group's own website it seems to prefer the term "colourblind antiracism". Morwen (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That would seem to be a problematic descriptor. In our article on its director, Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, it is described as an organization that promotes a "colour-blind" approach to anti-racism and critiques the implementation of Critical Race Theory in public institutions. The self-descriptor seems insufficient. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

that would seem to be a good basis for a description of it here. Morwen (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and swiped it from there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

cool. Just realised btw how weird it is that's in the "early life and career" section when really it needs to be alongside the Liddle stuff etc. Bit hard to work out how to structure this, though. maybe have one section devoted solely to the bare details of his academic career and then another one about his "free speech" views and activities including them, the Liddle stuff and the views on Leveson? Possibly his political party stuff could be in there too? Morwen (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That would make more sense. At the moment, there is one thing in an odd "media" section, that should go there if it goes anywhere (not sure it's due.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem with my suggestion would be that the Liddle thing did result in a suspension in his job so it's not like it's cleanly severable. Maybe we have to do a dreaded "see more below" forward reference. The current thing in the media section doesn't seem due. It's just him talking about someone else. Morwen (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, there was much more, but it was WP:DAILYEXPRESS. It is possible there are usable sources covering this more. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Some bios do have a section for board memberships. While the views of DDU are in some harmony with the material regarding Liddle, his actual position in it is not directly relevant to that situation, so perhaps that would be the best angle of attack? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

worth a try I reckon. Morwen (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)